This is where I publish my preliminary research notes and ideas concerning warfare in the Book of Mormon. This is a spot for civilians, military historians, members of the LDS church and anybody else who enjoys studying the military aspects of the Book of Mormon and its impact on the LDS Church, society and the field of military history.

New Title!

Now Available in Paperback!

Follow by Email

About Me

I have a B.A. from Southern Virginia University and an M.A. in History from Norwich University. I have presented or published papers on Napoleonic warfare, East Asian history, Book of Mormon warfare, and the American Civil War. In 2009 I separated from the military after serving 9 years as an infantry riflemen, squad leader and intelligence analyst.
I am the author of “Forming the Formless: Sun-Tzu and the military logic of Ender Wiggins,” “Offensive Warfare in The Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” and "The Battle Experience in the Book of Mormon." I have authored numerous articles for the Encyclopedias of Military Philosophy and Russia at War. My books Ancient Warfare in The Book of Mormon and Decisive Battles in Chinese History are now available.
Currently I teach history at American Public University and several other schools. I studied in the MPhil/PhD War Studies Program at Kings College London. My political and military analysis can be found in Opslens magazine, Strategy and Tactics, Fox News, Strategy Bridge, Washington Examiner and other places.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

From the newest issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a review of War & Peace in Our Time: Mormon Perspectives. Reviewer Rachel Esplin Odell calls the book "an instructive contribution that expands, deepens, and refines conversation about questions of war and peace in the LDS tradition." She concludes: "The diversity of LDS thought represented in this volume indicates that Mormon theological resources can inform an array of stances on both these complex concrete issues, as well as broader ethical principles regarding questions of war and peace. Indeed, given the varied and at times contradictory approaches to violence and politics in LDS history and scripture, it is difficult to identify a definitive Mormon paradigm regarding pacifism or just war. Rather than impede the growth of LDS thought on war and peace, however, the lack of such an obvious framework instead provides fertile ground for further discussion and examination of such subjects within the Mormon community."

Monday, March 17, 2014

John Kammeyer won his Juris Doctor from the Northwestern
School of Law.He has three books of
scriptural research published at https://www.smashwords.com: The Nephite Art of
War (2012), Warfare in Mesoamerica: Battles in the Book of Mormon (2012) The
Book of Exodus: An Israelite Endowment (2014).I enjoyed the idea of viewing Alma's movement as a political insurgency.It reminded me of historian Mark Grimsley's
argument that the Civil Rights movement was an insurgency, and suggests that
our conception of warfare might expand beyond conventional armies and battles.

Would it surprise you to learn that Alma the Elder was
running a secret combination? While his purposes were good rather than ill, it
still had all the elements of a subversive group—and King Noah certainly took
it as such.

(Mosiah 18:1a)
And now, it came to pass that Alma, who had fled from the servants of King
Noah, repented of his sins and iniquities,

The first thing an insurgency needs is a leader with a cause.
Daniel C. Peterson and others note that few movements in the ancient world were
purely secular, they almost always had a religious motive or rational.[1]
There is nothing unsavory in saying Alma’s motives were mixed.

First Phase: The goal of an insurgency is to
separate the people from the government. According to the Wikipedia:

Maoist theory of people's war
divides warfare into three phases. In the first phase, the guerrillas gain the
support of the population through attacks on the machinery of government and
the distribution of propaganda.[2]

Every successful insurgency has to (1) discredit government
ideology, and (2) replace it with one the people will believe in.

(Mosiah 18:1b)
and went about privately among the people, and began to teach the words of
Abinadi—

Alma would have started recruiting among his own household
and servants. According to Che Guevara: “At the outset there is a more or less
homogeneous group…that devotes itself almost exclusively to hiding in the
wildest and most inaccessible places.”[3]

(Mosiah 18:3)
And as many as would hear his word he did teach. And he taught them privately,
that it might not come to the knowledge of the king. And many did believe his
words.

Alma
had established a kind of first-phase insurgency, politicizing the people, in
Maoist terms, or “preparing the minds of the people to be faithful,” as Captain
Moroni (Alma 48:7) would have put it. Or in another setting, it looks like the beginning of the
Maccabean revolt, as described by Herzog and Gichon:

For approximately a year the
rebels made their preparations in relative peace. Emphasis was laid on the
reaffirmation of the principles of Judaism for which they were fighting. They
defended themselves whenever necessary, but initiated few operations while
organizing their base. At the same time they strengthened contacts with the
villages in the countryside and spread the story of the revolt. Soon an effective
intelligence-gathering organization was developed as a people’s militia grew
under the leadership of Judah the Maccabee…[4]

Judah
Maccabee laid the foundation of his movement on righteousness, and ideology,
and recruiting the countryside.

Second Phase: According to Wikipedia:

In the second phase,
escalating attacks are made on the government's military and vital
institutions.[5]

This
proceeds from indoctrination, to progressively denying the government the
ability to function, by means of a functional organization.

(Mosiah 18:4)
And it came to pass that as many as did believe him did go forth to a place
which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the
borders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.
(5) Now, there was in Mormon a fountain of pure water, and Alma resorted
thither, there being near the water a thicket of small trees, where he did hide
himself in the daytime from the searches of the king. (6) And it came to pass
that as many as believed him went thither to hear his words.

The king was still looking for him. Noah assumed Alma would
attempt to raise up a rebellion against him, and he “did hide himself…from the
searches of the king.”

(Mosiah 18:7)
And it came to pass after many days there were a goodly number gathered
together at the place of Mormon, to hear the words of Alma. Yea, all were
gathered together that believed on his word, to hear him. And he did teach
them, and did preach unto them repentance, and redemption, and faith on the
Lord.

We note from Alma 31:5 that

…the preaching of the word had
a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had
more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything
else, which had happened unto them—

According to Che: “the guerrilla, having taken up
inaccessible positions out of reach of the enemy...ought to proceed to the
gradual weakening of the enemy.”[6]Rather than subverting the government by the
sword, Alma was subverting it by the word of God.

(Mosiah 18:
16) And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place
of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and
they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of
God. (17) And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from
that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power
and authority of God was added to his church.

A covenant, binding them to God and to
their leader, Alma, would have been a powerful unifying element. They were
swearing their lives to him and to God. They were serious about this.

Alma started to establish cells among
the larger population:

(Mosiah 18:18)
And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests;
even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto
them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Initially, there were about four cells, each led by a priest,
while Alma hid out in his wilderness refuge. It was an urban conspiracy, like
the later Gadianton Robbers. While building the organization, he continued to
indoctrinate.

(Mosiah 18:19)
And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things
which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy
prophets.

To maintain the loyalty of the group, he had to keep them
focused on his teachings, his ideology. There could be no rivals to his
leadership.

(Mosiah 18:20)
Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were
repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people. (21) And he
commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that
they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having
their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another. (22a) And
thus he commanded them to preach.

To subvert the government, he had to keep the people focused
on the covenant with God.

(Mosiah
18:22b) And thus they became the children of God. (23) And he commanded them
that they should observe the sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day
they should give thanks to the Lord their God.

Living among a larger population, they would be able to
unobtrusively observe what was going on, and know if the King had learned of
them.

(Mosiah 18:24)
And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor
with their own hands for their support.

This was to establish equality among
his people. Next, he had to instill a functioning social system, in order to
keep them focused on the covenant.

(Mosiah
18:25) And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should
gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their
God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves
together.

They were organized in cells of fifty people, or about six to
eight households each. Recruiting them from extended households would ensure
the secrecy of the movement—everybody was related, everyone knew who was
involved. On normal days, the priests would perhaps go from household to
household, like a secret home teaching route. There are other ways the entire
group could have met, such as at market days and national festivals. They knew
their own calendar and could make arrangements. Since the movement was based on
family groups, outsiders wouldn’t be able to tell if it was a family barbeque
or a sacrament meeting.

(Mosiah 18:26)
And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for
their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong
in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power
and authority from God.

Daniel J. Elazar also notes:

[The
Levites] had to support themselves by their own labor and could not count on
maintaining themselves through their ritual services. They were not a clergy
living off the labor of others. This is an old Jewish tradition, part of the
approach to civic life of the edah.[7]

Compare this with the Priests of Noah, who were glutting
themselves on the people’s goods. There must have been a lot of bitterness
about this. A secular reason for the priests to support themselves was to
maintain the clandestine character of the movement. Nobody was to stand out
from the larger population.

In the second phase of the insurgency, the organization grows
and becomes more sophisticated. Alma would have led the group. The priests, an
embryonic Council of Elders, would have transmitted his teachings to the group.
In Marxist terms, a sort of Central Committee.

It was common in Semitic societies to have a joint presidency
between priestly and lay judges.[8]
The lay judges, led by Helam, would have had a lot to do at this point,
ensuring the welfare of the group. It parallels the modern relationship between
the LDS Stake President and the Bishop. Alma and the priests oversaw the
spiritual welfare of the people, and Helam oversaw the temporal affairs.

(Mosiah 18:27)
And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their
substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly
he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little
should be required; and to him that had not should be given. (28) And thus they
should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires
towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy,
naked soul.

Communalism would instill a sense of community and of shared
hardships and danger.

(Mosiah 18:29)
And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk
uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually
according to their needs and their wants.

Charity was part of the covenant, as we find both in the Old
Testament and the Book of Mormon.

In Mosiah 18:31 we note that “these things were done in the
borders of the land, that they might not come to the knowledge of the king.” It
was a secret society.

Third
Phase:
According to the Wikipedia:

In the third phase,
conventional fighting is used to seize cities, overthrow the government, and
take control of the country.[9]

There
is no way to know how far Alma was aiming to go with this; presumably, he was
trying to bring the whole society back to righteousness. It didn’t reach a
third phase, because King Noah discovered the movement.

(Mosiah 18:32)
But behold, it came to pass that the king, having discovered a movement among
the people, sent his servants to watch them. Therefore on the day that they
were assembling themselves together to hear the word of the Lord they were
discovered unto the king.

It doesn’t sound like he’d penetrated the group, but too many
people were beating a path out to Alma’s thicket.[10]

(Mosiah 18:33)
And now the king said that Alma was stirring up the people to rebellion against
him; therefore he sent his army to destroy them. (34) And it came to pass that
Alma and the people of the Lord were apprised of the coming of the king's army;
therefore they took their tents and their families and departed into the
wilderness.

It took a while for the king to figure out what was going on.
He must have sent his soldiers out to the Waters of Mormon, unaware of the
larger character of the movement. So while they were (literally) beating the
bushes for Alma, people were filtering out of the city and assembling elsewhere
for departure.

(Mosiah 18:35)
And they were in number about four hundred and fifty souls.

The goal of an insurgency is survival, even if this means retreating
and giving up territory. According to Mao, in an only slightly different
context: “A strategic retreat is a planned strategic step taken by an inferior
force for the purpose of conserving its strength and biding its time to defeat
the enemy, when it finds itself confronted with a superior force whose
offensive it is unable to smash quickly.”[11]

Bear
in mind that Alma was only 80 miles away, once they settled in the Land of
Helam. He had no intention of returning to overthrow Noah, but he would not have
been the first or last rebel leader to flee into the wilderness in order to
fight another day.

Is this reading too much into Mosiah
18? Not at all, it makes sense of the story in both religious and temporal
contexts.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Victor David Hanson described how the Ottoman Admiral Ali Pasha carried his entire fortune into the battle with him at the Battle of Lepanto (1571). Hanson argues he did that in part because he couldn't trust that the Sultan would not arbitrarily confiscate his fortune. In contrast, the Venetians were part of the city states of northern Italy which safeguarded their money in a relatively democratic republic with free markets and a respect for property rights. This resulted in a striking imbalance of economic and military power between the Venetians and Ottomans. Despite having far vastly smaller amounts of territory and resources compared to the Ottoman Empire, the Venetians and their shipyards and armories that made up the Arsenal of Venice could create a relatively larger fleet of higher quality ships faster than their opponents.

This website seeks to highlight and promote ideas that defend the fundamental principles of American strength, including free market principles, commitment to the rule of law, limited government, and military strength symbolically represented in the Arsenal of Venice. It also serves to highlight my writing projects and I humbly hope to be as productive in producing quality policy and military analysis as the historical Arsenal of Venice.

This is a new website I've developed to highlight my broader writings, and provide an online presence for them The end goal is for this website to do with my various political and military writings what this website did for my ideas concerning warfare in the Book of Mormon. I hope you get a chance to look at it and provide any feedback.